Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/16/2026, with respect to Seo et al (US 20130153867 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 04/23/2026 has been withdrawn.
Seo et al (US 20130153867 A1) does not disclose the ETL comprising a phenanthroline compound.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/16/2026, with respect to Duan et al (CN 111943949 A) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 04/23/2026 has been withdrawn.
The amended claims no longer include an -N(Q1)(Q2) group as the R11 to R18 groups in T11 to T18 in Formula 1-1, which is required by Duan.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Moriyama’s compound 2 does not have a hydrogen at the T11 and T14 positions of claim formula 1-1. This argument is partially convincing. The T11 and T14 positions in Compound 2 have aryl groups that read on the R12, R13 and R15 to R18 groups for Formula 1-1. The rejection over Moriyama has been amended to an obviousness 103 rejection, based on the structural similarity, see the detailed rejection below.
Applicant argues that the BPhen or other phenanthroline comounds of Kondakov do not read on the claimed Formula 1-1 or Formula 2 compounds. This argument is not convincing. Applicant does not explain why the compounds do not read on the claimed formulae. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Furthermore, at least BPhen is still within the scope of Formula 1-1, as acknowledged by Applicant when including it as the heterocyclic Compound 2 in claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Kondakov et al (US 20070252522 A1).
Kondakov discloses OLED having an EIL layer comprising compounds of either formula below [p7]:
PNG
media_image1.png
159
232
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
146
430
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein L includes bivalent aromatic groups and other claimed B groups [0026]. Specific examples include [p8]:
PNG
media_image3.png
230
270
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
238
418
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein the first compound is BPhen and reads on claimed compound 2 and the second compound is a position isomer of compound 6 of claim 10, and the general formula of Kondakov above discloses that all position isomers. The cathode may include silver [0163]. The OLED device may be on a thin film transistor substrate connected to either electrode [0065, 0069], and the devices may include color filters, and polarizers [0171]. The EIL has a thickness of 1 to 30 nm [0029] and the ETL has a thickness of 1 to 100 nm [0022], and at least one example includes an EIL of 10nm and an ETL of 25.1 nm [p36 Table 8a]. Kondakov discloses that phenanthrolines may also be used in the electron transporting layer [0161].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3,5-9, 11-12, 14 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriyama et al (US 20130137205 A1).
Moriyama discloses an OLED having an EIL deposited over a charge transport layer (ETL) [0066] that is formed over first, second, and third compound layers (light emitting layers) [0065] with a silver (Ag) second electrode deposited directly on the EIL [0066]. The EIL has a thickness of 20nm and includes the compound 2 [0066, 0056 p7]:
PNG
media_image5.png
288
482
media_image5.png
Greyscale
. The light emitting layers include blue, green and red pixel layers [0055, 0060, 0063]. Moriyama teaches one embodiment wherein the phenanthroline compound 2 is included in both a charge transport layer (ETL) and the EIL deposited thereon, with a second electrode deposited directly on the EIL [0066].
The compound 2 of Moriyama, while not anticipatory of the compounds of claim Formula 1-1, include the same C3 to C60 carbocyclic groups (dimethylfluorene in Moriyama) that read on the T12 to T13 and T15 to T18 groups of Formula 1-1 on the same phenanthroline core molecule, used in the same capacity and arranged just as in the claimed compounds, and made by similar methods. The compound 2 of Moriyama is simply a position isomer of many compounds of claim Formula 1-1. The claimed compounds would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention because the skilled artisan would have expected the claimed and disclosed compounds to have similar and overlapping if not indistinguishable properties based on the structural similarities of the compounds.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have used the claimed compounds of Formula 1-1 because Moriyama discloses a position isomer thereof and the ordinary skilled artisan would expect position isomers to have similar if not indistinguishable properties to the disclosed compounds.
Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978).
Case law confirms that a prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M DOLLINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5464. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6:30pm M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
MICHAEL M. DOLLINGER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1766
/MICHAEL M DOLLINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights